A think tank with a difference

by K. Godage

The primary objectives of  the Association

1.  To mobilize retired executives, professionals, and Acedemics to contribute to the development effort

2.  Undertake policy analysis and advocacy in matters of public interest,

3.  Advocate/ intercede on matters of ‘Aging’,

4.  Endeavour to improve the quality of life of members and to provide them with essential services,

5.  Empower members through collective action.

The newest Association to be formed, ‘The Sri Lanka Association of Retired Executives, Professionals and Academics’, has the potential of becoming the best and most effective Think Tank of this country.

‘Retired but not tired’ were the words of the respected Professor Carlo Fonseka in his description of those who had gathered to inaugurate the above association.

How very true, we may have retired from the Public Service or whatever profession or vocation on reaching the stipulated age of retirement but we have not retired from life nor are we tired. Most of us are eager and able yet to contribute in whatever way we can to improve the lot of our people.

The contribution that a group such as those who gathered for that inaugural meeting could be enormous; their combined experience would add up to hundreds of years and their knowledge absolutely enormous. The initial task facing the Association would be as to how to mobilize this available talent, experience and knowledge; the next task would be obtain the recognition of the government and the policy makers that this Association is an intellectual ‘gold mine’ that could be harnessed for the good of the country.

Perhaps this recognition could be achieved on the basis of performance; on the ‘Policy Papers’ or commentaries on national issues which the Association could release.

I do believe the Association would have to market itself and convince the government that it is in its interest to use the Association which incidentally should be wholly ‘Apolitical’ and would be able to provide the best possible advice and policy options leaving it to the politician to decide. Those holding high office today are busy shuffling files and do not have much time to either formulate policy, leave alone to indulge in analysis and futuristic thinking.

Most countries even those in South Asia tap this resource with profit. India and Pakistan have for years encouraged retired officers to form ‘Think Tanks’ because these countries have considered the objective advice from these experienced officials as being invaluable. Our government would also do well to to follow this example.

Those who took the initiative to establish this Association should be congratulated and need to be supported. What form should this ‘support’ take? Any organization that is being set up would need some ‘seed money’ and next a modest sum every month or annually to ‘run’ the organization.

This money could surely come without strings attached from the President’s Fund for this is a worthy cause and the amount involved could best be described as ‘Silera’.

I am certain that the able Permanent Secretary to the President, Lalith Weeratunge, who would himself join us at some distant date, would support this initiate and speak to the President on the importance of having such a ‘Think Tank’ to assist the government with objective policy options, advice and analysis.

The government could also identify areas of interest to it where the Association could be of help commission such studies. The Association could indeed make a worthwhile contribution. The bringing together of multi-disciplinary teams for specific projects would be the next task for the ‘Managers’ of the Association.

Perhaps the most difficult task we would face would be the ‘marketing’ of the proposals that emanate from the Association and making the politician realize that it would be in their interest to accept objective policy proposals and ensure implementation.

The above are some thoughts off the top of the head as it were, which I wish to share with friends who would be far more competent to think through the process.

One cardinal pillar of the Association should be our independence and also that we are absolutely Apolitical. We cannot but succeed in the interest of the country.

I do sincerely hope that others too would join in this ‘discussion’ through the medium of your newspaper for I am confident that such contributions would assist the Committee that has established itself to take this project forward. -The Island

Districts a superior model for devolution

By Arjuna Hulugalle

It was Abba Eban, the former Israeli Foreign Minister, who once said ‘Nations are capable of acting rationally but only after they have exhausted all other alternatives’. That sums up where we are today. It has taken us over 50 years to reach this point.

The biggest hindrance to act rationally in Third World countries like ours is the lack of self-confidence in ourselves. Many of us seem willing to sacrifice thousands of lives, especially if they do not happen to be one’s kith and kin, to prove that Sri Lanka is a pristine Sinhala country with its 2500 years of history, religious and cultural traditions and identity or to establish the concept of a Tamil Nation within the island with a right to so called self-determination and a homeland. A common vision to work towards a rational, just and equitable society where good governance, justice, a fair distribution of power and wealth, and civilised behaviour prevails is strikingly absent. Such shared values which would transcend the seemingly endemic parochial interests can only come through a new consciousness to create a Sri Lankan identity which respects and extols the diversity of its people.

The potential of the country’s economy and the well-being of its people is widely recognised. With 19 million people the population is larger than that of Australia. The land mass of 65,000 square kilometres and an area of 540,000 square kilometres including the ocean territory under the country’s jurisdiction is not negligible. The country is strategically positioned at the cross-roads between Europe and East Asia. There is nothing between the country and the Antarctic in the south, of Africa in the west, and the Malaysian archipelago in the east. The one large neighbour separated by 36 miles of water is friendly towards the country, and potentially offers a huge market for export. The country has an equable climate. The multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious population is better educated than in most other Third World countries. There is no reason hence why the country cannot be prosperous. There is literally room for everyone.

The wisdom of the day, expressed forcefully by intellectuals in research institutes and the seminar circuit, and, indeed by many in mainstream political parties, is that the sine qua non for promoting unity in diversity and prosperity for all is a constitutional settlement which devolves much more power to regions. Although advocated primarily as a means of ending the LTTE war, its application is to be island-wide. The difficulty is that among the population at large, except for the Tamils, there appears to be little interest in devolution. Devolution so far has made little difference to their lives; they are sceptical of the value of even more decentralisation. People living in different parts of the country (other than the Tamils) just do not feel that they have distinctive regional identities which justifies a further round of devolution.

More devolution, whatever its merits, cannot be imposed by an ukase from the top. A

new, wider devolution package requires the support of two-third of the members of Parliament, as well as approval by a majority of voters in a referendum, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The case for further devolution thus has to be argued and won both in Parliament and the country. The apathetic majority in the country have to be persuaded firstly of the potential benefits to them of power being decentralised to legislators closer to the people they serve; and secondly, that devolution would not give a fillip to separatism and jeopardise the territorial integrity of the country. The latter is a legitimate fear of the majority in the context of talk of a permanent merger of the Northern Province and the ethnically more diverse Eastern Province, and the potential for even more ‘ethnic cleansing’ than witnessed so far in the two provinces.

Devolution of power to units of government, which are smaller than the existing Provinces, and capable of exercising increased powers wisely, would meet the two criteria mentioned above. The existing districts in Sri Lanka (25 in total) could constitute such units for further devolution. Devolution on a district rather than a Provincial basis would minimise if not dispel the fear that less central power and regulation would endanger the territorial integrity of the country. At the same time districts are large enough to be managed as self-sustaining units by their own assemblies.

Smaller units offer more opportunities for participation by local people. Legislators would be better informed, with the needs and potential of the areas they represent; better equipped to define local priorities; more accountable for their decisions; and more responsive to local needs. The ‘democratic deficit’, which everybody complains of nowadays at a national and provincial level, and fears arising from further devolution (particularly in the North and the East) would be reduced.

It may be argued that the districts are too small to be viable units of devolved government. The argument does not hold. Switzerland, the most democratic and best governed country in the world, and extremely prosperous too, has a population of only 7 million people. Extensive power is exercised there by 20 cantons and 6 half Cantons, self-governing on most matters affecting the everyday lives of people. Devolution to districts in Sri Lanka rather than to larger units (be it Provinces or the merger of Provinces) is better suited to accommodate the regional, political, ethnic, religious and other variations in the country. The complex mix of people and interests within the existing Provinces could be better accommodated with districts as the devolution unit.

The problems associated with any form of further devolution cannot, and should not, be under-estimated. Handing more power to local people to look after themselves implies inevitably far greater diversity and choice in public policy in devolved subjects. Devolution rhetoric and centralistic practice (as at present) can never be reconciled. More devolution implies more diversity. That, in turn, means no more uniform (or universal) access to public services throughout the country at least in respect of decentralised matters. Greater innovation and experimentation would be the norm with regard to the social sector (e.g. schools and health), devolved areas of taxation, subsidies and investment, policing and any other matters where the Centre gives up control.

For example, if education is fully decentralised to districts there could well be variations in the medium of instruction (English in certain districts in the North?), the curriculum, selection to schools and universities, teachers pay. Likewise there could be variations in other areas such as health and local taxation. Some districts may even allow people to challenge public policy of legislators by initiating referendums. The end of country-wide expectations of equity and provision of services would be the price that would have to be paid for more devolution and vibrant local democracy. Would it in practice be any worse than the gross district inequities prevalent today? Hardly likely.

Another problem would relate to financial resources available to districts and decentralised taxation powers. Over time districts should be able to raise a higher proportion of their resources through local taxes (such as income and corporate taxes, vehicle duties, property taxes and rates) and by borrowing; and spend them locally. The present position is that most tax revenue is collected centrally. There is a need to devise an equitable basis for the distribution of taxes such as VAT and import duties to districts, possibly on a population basis with special treatment for less-developed districts.

The third and most important difficulty relates to the powers and authority of the Centre and of the districts; including the authority over island-wide services such as for example telecommunications. There are complex issues pertaining to Centre-periphery powers, part practical part emotional, which have bedevilled the debate so far on devolution. It merits separate examination.

While there are no doubt difficulties in devolving power to districts, its merits should not be overlooked. Working class-based political parties should welcome power being moved closer to the masses. More and more of them would be empowered to take charge of decisions that most affect their lives. Moreover, devolution at district level would open up opportunities for greater political pluralism. The JVP, for example, may well have the opportunity to govern in a Southern district. It would then be able to put into practice policies inspired by its idealism, austere morality, incorruptibility and socialist ideology to provide a better life for local people; efficient district governance could well provide the indispensable springboard for wider popularity elsewhere in the country.

Similarly, a reformed LTTE may well be able to govern districts in the North and the East with wisdom, bankrolled by the Tamil diaspora and foreign assistance. The Tamils living in the Nuwara Eliya district too would have a far greater clout to influence policy to better their conditions, than would be possible in the present larger unit of devolution.

The system of wider devolution will ultimately have to be decided not by foreign powers and facilitators, constitutional pundits, or elitists in the foreign-funded seminar circuit but by the majority of voters in a challenging referendum. The suppliers of devolution ideas, the framers of devolution policies, the makers of claims of the superiority of devolution as a model of governance need to persuade and convince the public. They have not done so as yet. Perhaps devolution to districts based on the Swiss model of cantonal self-governance and centre-periphery relations is the rational path to pursue. -The Island-

President sets trend, son to join Navy

President Mahinda Rajapakse’s second son Yoshitha Rajapakse, Thursday faced a preliminary test at Welisara navy base. "It will be the first in several tests," a military spokesman said adding, "If successful, he would be joining the executive branch of the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN).

The Thomian ruggerite was among a group of candidates who faced the aptitude test at the base north of Colombo.

Successful candidates would join the service as cadet officers and once they complete the required training would be commissioned as Acting Sub Lieutenants.

Yoshitha recently received the nod from the President to join the SLN. Yoshitha’s Grandfather E. P. Wickremesinghe had held the rank of Commander and at the time of retirement had been the third or fourth in the line of command.

A senior navy spokesman said that this would definitely help the ongoing recruitment drive to strengthen the SLN. The armed forces are engaged in a major effort to attract youth as security forces clash with the LTTE on several fronts with the focus on a campaign to weaken Sea Tigers.

"We are proud to have a son of President Rajapakse in our ranks," the officer said, expressing the belief that this would be an example to other parents and an encouragement to youth.

The SLN inflicted considerable losses on Sea Tigers since last May when they made an abortive bid to target a passenger vessel carrying over 700 off duty personnel to Kankesanthurai. The SLN also thwarted several attempts to smuggle in arms, ammunition and equipment with the September 16 attack on a large vessel over 100 nautical miles off Kalmunai being the biggest recent detection in the high seas. However SLN victories did not come cheap.

Courtesy:     The Island

Co-chairs as preachers

The Co-chairs of the Tokyo Donors’ Conference on Sri Lanka have issued yet another statement blaming both parties to the conflict for the escalation of violence and called for keeping the supply routes open. It has welcomed the government’s readiness to send convoys of essential goods via the now closed A-9 road—an offer that the LTTE has flatly refused demanding that the road be fully opened. The government is wary of meeting the LTTE demand on the grounds that the objective of the outfit is to resume illegal taxes, arms smuggling etc. by taking advantage of the road opening.

However noble their intentions may be, the Co-chairs are, we are afraid, not making a worthwhile contribution to peace making. They are only behaving like a group of preachers trying as they do very hard to impress the virtues of non violence, compassion and respect for human rights on the warring factions, knowing very well that they are pouring water on a duck’s back. Nobody seems to pay heed to their preaching but they go on pontificating. Thus, the Co-chairs have wasted their time and money on meetings. The suffering of civilians remains far from ameliorated, violence escalates and the death toll rises.

Those who are involved in conflict resolution here are preoccupied with the final solution, which might even be light years away. They appear to think that everything else has to wait until the conflict is resolved once and for all. A process of resolving a protracted conflict warrants short term and middle term strategies to address the issues that, besides causing human misery, may also have the potential to stand in the way of a final solution.

The present phase of ‘undeclared’ war began with the LTTE capturing the Mawilaru anicut, having attacked the security forces with claymore mines for months. Had the Co-chairs made an early intervention at that stage to stop the LTTE provocations, the escalation of violence could have been averted. Mere statements sans action are of little use in curbing violence.

Restraining the LTTE is a task that the UK or Norway can accomplish with ease by summoning the big Tigers it is sponsoring on its soil and warning the outfit through them to behave. The UK did so quite effectively when Tamil parliamentarian Sam Thambimttu’s wife and son were abducted in the East in the late 1980s. The British government asked LTTE Spokesman Anton Balasingham in London to either secure their release or get ready to be deported. That method worked. (However, the LTTE killed Mr. and Mrs. Thambimuttu in 1990). More recently, when the LTTE abducted a prominent Tamil social worker called Jayadevan, a British passport holder in the Wanni owing to a dispute over a Kovil in the UK, the British government intervened and secured his release.

Making an aid worshipping government fall in line is much easier. It was only a few years ago that a bossy vice president of the World Bank told President Kumaratunga how to run the country. An otherwise pugnacious Ms. Kumaratunga took it all lying down. Such is the power that the givers of aid and loans wield over mendicant governments anywhere in the world.

Perhaps, it is not fair for the Co-chairs to be asked to clear the mess Sri Lanka has created herself. But, now that they have volunteered to shoulder the burden of resolving the conflict, they ought to change their strategy. They need to take crucial issues one by one and deal with them as and when they crop up without letting the grass grow under their feet and lumping them together. The biggest problem besetting the country at present being the plight of civilians in the North, the Co-chairs should be more focused on it.

The best way to help that hapless populace is to send food convoys through the A-9 road. Since the LTTE is opposed to the government proposal, the Co-chairs can step in to break the deadlock. They should either ask the LTTE to allow the supplies to reach the North as the government suggests or get the road fully reopened by wresting an assurance from the LTTE that it won’t resume its illegal taxes, arms struggling and forays. They must also spell out what action they propose to take in case of the LTTE acting in breach of its assurance.

Bland statements which leave much unsaid are not going to take us anywhere. They are not worth the paper they are written on. -The Island Editorial

A journalist and gentleman

Ajith is no more! The icy cold hand of death has cruelly removed from our midst a brilliant journalist and wonderful friend. We are at a loss for words to describe how diminished we are. Our sorrow knows no bounds.

Ajith (Samaranayake) began his brilliant career way back in 1975 at Lake House as a young radical bubbling with zest and burning passion for the printed word. Having already cut his teeth on writing at Trinity, he took to journalism like a duck to water. Under the tutelage of heavyweights of the day, he rose to the cruising altitude of Sri Lankan journalism in no time.

He joined The Island at its inception and went on to edit The Island Sunday Edition. No respecter of political potentates and their commissars, he led the charge against the dictatorial regime at that time from the front to keep the popular struggle to democratise Sri Lankan politics alive. He also lent his voice fearlessly to mass movements for democracy and human rights.

There was hardly a subject that he didn’t write about. He excelled as a literary critic, political commentator and editorialist par excellence. Anything that he wrote, the people devoured avidly. His columns sold newspapers. To us the fellow scribes, it was a pleasure to be with Ajith and see him at work. He would sit in his editorial chair stroking his greying beard and suddenly he would spring into action. He would take out his small typewriter—by the ear as we jokingly said—and produce a juicy copy in record time and disappear equally fast after finishing it to exercise his elbow at a watering hole, a habit that never deserted him. He apparently thought on the same lines as Mark Twain, who said:

All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"- a strange complaint to come from the mouths of people who have had to live.

Following the false beginning of a new era in 1994, immersed in the prevailing zeitgeist, he went whence he had come—to edit The Sunday Observer. His going back was a mistake as he used to confide in the editor of this newspaper whenever they met. At the time of his death, he was Editor of The Friday tabloid.

Ajith obsessively strove to maintain what he fondly referred to as gravitas in journalism, which is fast disappearing with packaging taking precedence over content in today’s newspapers, as he recently pointed out in a column. He jealously guarded editorial freedom and had the knack for having a tiff with those who wielded authority. He knew there was a Brutus behind every pillar in state media institutions but didn’t give two hoots about the consequences that his defiance would lead to. For, he didn’t care for positions. A good journalist, it is said, works with the resignation letter in his pocket.

The tragic death of his sister last week dealt a devastating blow that Ajith could hardly withstand. Since then, he had been battling death in an ICU of a Colombo hospital. A fighter to the last, he may have thought like Donne:

Death be not proud, though some have called thee

Mighty and dreadful, for, thou art not so`85

With Ajith’s untimely demise, gone is a man who never bartered standards and ethics of his profession for personal gain. Ajith leaves us sad but proud.

Adios amigo!

-The Island Editorial